 | | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
| | | | (...) Why fission? Just because it's easier for us right now to garner energy from fissionable heavy minerals rather than the fusion of light ones? The concepts for nuclear pulse propulsion for fission almost always have to be external to the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core) —Ed T. Toton III
| | | | | (...) from (...) concepts (...) to (...) *inside* (...) momentum, (...) Why fission? It can be done -now-. The technology exists. :) I agree, in the long run fusion is much better, because of the theoretical effeciency, and the abundance of fuel (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core) —Patrick Leahy
| | | | | (...) Although fusion propulsion is far better than fission propulsion, there are still faster things. For example, light drives. They work by emitting light backward, as so to move foreward, an you know what the specific impulse in that case would (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
| | | | | | |
